# Maryland Residents and Mail Ordering Cigars



## ProgressNotes

I'm trying to determine if there is any validity that as of this May, Maryland residents cannot mail order cigars from online retailers. Some of what I read seems to imply this, and some does not. I was hoping maybe somebody here had a better handle on the exact situation. 

Thanks!


----------



## titlowda

I am in the same situation. Nothing really concrete that I have seen but the B&M's are all over it as well.


----------



## ProgressNotes

titlowda said:


> I am in the same situation. Nothing really concrete that I have seen but the B&M's are all over it as well.


The local ones around here are all about the tax increase....I haven't heard anything about mail order stuff until today, and that was via message boards.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn

Read it and weep!

Maryland Bans Internet Sales of Pipe Tobacco and all OTP | Pipes Magazine - The #1 Source for Pipes and Pipe Tobacco Information

Damn communism is what it is!!!!!


----------



## Captnstabn

That is the only place I've seen it. Are there any other sources?


----------



## titlowda

The PDF file is quite interesting.


----------



## InsidiousTact

This is simply appalling. All you who livein Maryland, you have a month to devote solely to the purchase of tobacco. After that... Well, after that PM me, and we can discuss your plight in further detail :wink:


----------



## Frankenstein

Maybe I just missed it, but the 31 page document appears to only be restricting business purchases. page 21.... 16a-217: "this section applies to a person who is engaged in the business of selling or distributing other tobacco products."

Am I wrong? Hope not.... Otherwise this would mean the government is trying to tell you where you can and cannot purchase stuff as a private individual.

Now as for taxation, I wasn't looking for that, but I have a feeling there are already laws that say we should be reporting purchases across state lines ( just seems to make sense, I have no sources on this).


----------



## InsidiousTact

I was under the impression that it limited individuals, not just businesses, much like Washington. But hey, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong!


----------



## Jeff10236

Captnstabn said:


> That is the only place I've seen it. Are there any other sources?


Go to Legal Resources which is a database of MD laws and rules. Do a search for title 16.5, pay special attention to the amendments that are effective May 1, 2011 (especially 12-103 Presumption of taxability: contraband tobacco products; burden of proof., and http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryla...=&skc=8000000200023718&c=curr&gh=1&2.0#LPHit1 12-104 Exemptions).

Now, IANAL, but 12-103 states that if we are caught possessing or transporting tobacco products we must be able to prove that the state tax has been paid on them. Basically, they need to have the MD state tax stamp on them.

12-104, Exemptions, may have seemed fair to the legislators familiar with cigarettes, but for pipe and cigar smokers it is a joke. If you are a non-resident you can transport up to to $25 worth of tobacco products from out of state. For MD residents, we can have up to $5 worth for personal use that we brought from out of state.

Of course, there is also the PDF file from the State Comptrollers Office posted in the article: http://pipesmagazine.com/wp-content/2011-news/maryland-law/TT-68-bul-01-26-11.pdf

Reading over the FAQ from the Comptroller's office, it doesn't appear that _we_ as consumers are breaking any laws by buying online. However, it does appear that online retailers would have to be licensed in MD, pay all licensing fees, and collect the tobacco taxes to legally be able to sell online in MD. Further, section 12-103, exemptions, would make it a crime for us to possess or transport more than $5 worth of tobacco bought from out of state. So, we are SOL.

Of course, always remember IANAL, this is in no way legal advice. It is worth every bit of what you paid for it  . (Of course, I am a social studies teacher, I have long been an activist on CCW, another issue near and dear to me, and I have been involved in the political process in MD since I was 14 so I am not totally ignorant just because I'm not a lawyer).


----------



## ProgressNotes

Thanks, everyone. It does look like we're screwed. I asked one of the bigger mailorder sites about it, and they didn't seem to even know about this issue until they looked into it...now they apparently have a reason to be interested. If I hear anything, I will post it here.


----------



## Bleedingme

Insane. It would be difficult to enforce that law unless they hit the online retailers with fines until they stop shipping to the state.


----------



## WilsonRoa

I'm still trying to figure out how they'll be able to enforce this. With many sticks coming in and out of MD, how are they to know if its a private sell/gift or an online merchant?

***side note and I don't mean to hijack a thread, but checkout the Eastern Section for a possible herf in MD in May. this is easier to let you MD guys know instead of doing individual PMs.


----------



## ProgressNotes

WilsonRoa said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how they'll be able to enforce this. With many sticks coming in and out of MD, how are they to know if its a private sell/gift or an online merchant?
> 
> ***side note and I don't mean to hijack a thread, but checkout the Eastern Section for a possible herf in MD in May. this is easier to let you MD guys know instead of doing individual PMs.


This is all seemingly over my head, so I'm just waiting for a bigger mailorder site to come forward with an explanation before I start freaking out.

I do, however live literally across the street from DC (and work there), so it's not as big a deal to me as it would be to many others, but still.

I'll look into that herf, as well. Thanks for the head's up.


----------



## thatguy

I have no doubt that people here would buy for you guys in MD and send them to you. Might coas a few bucks more for shipping but there is always a way around this BS


----------



## athomas2

thatguy said:


> I have no doubt that people here would buy for you guys in MD and send them to you. Might coas a few bucks more for shipping but there is always a way around this BS


Thats what i was thinking. Im sure anyone would be happy out.


----------



## chrisw

Humm... The South Shall Rise Again!

oh, nevermind, I thought I was still in SC. Do you know they proudly tell me they never signed the surrender?


----------



## bigmanfromou

WilsonRoa said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how they'll be able to enforce this. With many sticks coming in and out of MD, how are they to know if its a private sell/gift or an online merchant?
> 
> .


We have a very similar liquor law as well. This is really going to suck.


----------



## quincy627

thatguy said:


> I have no doubt that people here would buy for you guys in MD and send them to you. Might coas a few bucks more for shipping but there is always a way around this BS


+1
My thoughts exactly. There's always more than 1 way to skin a cat. Like most other things I have seen, while it maybe true, I will believe it when I see it.


----------



## RGRTim

ProgressNotes said:


> I'm trying to determine if there is any validity that as of this May, Maryland residents cannot mail order cigars from online retailers. Some of what I read seems to imply this, and some does not. I was hoping maybe somebody here had a better handle on the exact situation.
> 
> Thanks!


If i find a job and wind staying in the area you can use my addy then pick em up in evening or weekend.


----------



## Zeb Zoober

Good news for Maryland:

Maryland Cigar Tax Bill Likely Dead | News & Features | Cigar Aficionado



> *Maryland Cigar Tax Bill Likely Dead*
> 
> *Andrew Nagy*
> *Posted: March 24, 2011 *
> 
> A bill that would have raised the cigar tax in Maryland to 95 percent of the wholesale price appears to be dead after a Senate committee voted to mark the bill as unfavorable.
> Senate Bill 654 called for Maryland's other tobacco products tax, which includes cigars, moist snuff, and roll-your-own tobacco, to be raised from 15 to 95 percent (not to exceed $3 per cigar), an increase of 533 percent. The bill also called for an increase in the tax on cigarettes and little cigars.
> On Monday the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee voted 12-1 to label the bill as unfavorable, meaning it will be seen on the chamber calendar under the heading "Unfavorable Reports" and will most likely be rejected.


----------



## funbags

i havent been paying too much to this but what about cigar businesses in maryland?? dont they use the mail to order their products??


----------



## sacmore21

FYI for those living in Maryland. This is what I received today on my order. Not pleased, but I don't blame CI :frown:

Thanks for shopping with Cigars International! *Recent changes in Maryland law prohibit us from shipping cigars into Maryland. We are currently working with Maryland, and looking for a solution. All orders will be held until a mutually agreed upon solution. We hope to have a decision in the next few days. Until then, your order is on hold.*


----------



## titlowda

Talk about suck!


----------



## Captnstabn

Another reason to move out of this communist state.


----------



## quincy627

sacmore21 said:


> FYI for those living in Maryland. This is what I received today on my order. Not pleased, but I don't blame CI :frown:
> 
> Thanks for shopping with Cigars International! *Recent changes in Maryland law prohibit us from shipping cigars into Maryland. We are currently working with Maryland, and looking for a solution. All orders will be held until a mutually agreed upon solution. We hope to have a decision in the next few days. Until then, your order is on hold.*


I guess I can expect to see this weeks cbid order put on hold.:frown:


----------



## WilsonRoa

sacmore21 said:


> FYI for those living in Maryland. This is what I received today on my order. Not pleased, but I don't blame CI :frown:
> 
> Thanks for shopping with Cigars International! *Recent changes in Maryland law prohibit us from shipping cigars into Maryland. We are currently working with Maryland, and looking for a solution. All orders will be held until a mutually agreed upon solution. We hope to have a decision in the next few days. Until then, your order is on hold.*


can you have it shipped to someone in VA or DC? Then pick it up or have that person ship it to you?


----------



## Jeff10236

sacmore21 said:


> FYI for those living in Maryland. This is what I received today on my order. Not pleased, but I don't blame CI :frown:
> 
> Thanks for shopping with Cigars International! *Recent changes in Maryland law prohibit us from shipping cigars into Maryland. We are currently working with Maryland, and looking for a solution. All orders will be held until a mutually agreed upon solution. We hope to have a decision in the next few days. Until then, your order is on hold.*


I made an order with another major retailer yesterday and got the normal order confirmation (the name of the retailer will be withheld to protect the innocent  ). No email that my order has been held or canceled, lets hope it stays that way (especially since I ordered 8oz of hard to find Penzance and 8oz of harder to find Stonehaven pipe tobaccos- if I lose this order it might be 6 months before I can get more).

Sucks that your CI order has been affected. Hopefully they work out whatever they are trying to work out and soon- I'd love to be able to continue to order from them.


----------



## ShawnP

So anymore news on this?

*sacmore21* did you ever get your cigars from CI?

Jeff10236 did you get your shipment from the un-named vendor?

I have 3 orders pending and all seem to be ready to ship. We shall see. First I've heard of this was this morning.

Shawn


----------



## CigarMike

Just another way to take our American freedoms away from us. Im grateful that this does not affect me(yet) and hope that everything works out in the end for all you in Maryland.


----------



## quincy627

Yep, sure enough. Cbid informed me my order was canceled and will not ship cigars to Maryland. sigh.


----------



## ShawnP

Looks like my order from (nameless) shipped. I was reading more on this and to me looks like it is up to the retailers to get their license to sell online.

Maybe CI didn't do this yet???

I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Shawn


----------



## Captnstabn

ShawnP said:


> Looks like my order from (nameless) shipped. I was reading more on this and to me looks like it is up to the retailers to get their license to sell online.
> 
> Maybe CI didn't do this yet???
> 
> I don't know, just thinking out loud.
> 
> Shawn


If that's the case, it means we will have to start paying tax on cigars bought online when we checkout. Oh well, it's better than not being able to get them at all.


----------



## Johnny Rock

I was just going to post that this sounds complicated enough for online retailers to refuse shipments to Maryland. This totally sucks. Socialist creep is among us.

Time to do something. That is all!!!


----------



## sacmore21

ShawnP said:


> So anymore news on this?
> 
> *sacmore21* did you ever get your cigars from CI?
> 
> Jeff10236 did you get your shipment from the un-named vendor?
> 
> I have 3 orders pending and all seem to be ready to ship. We shall see. First I've heard of this was this morning.
> 
> Shawn


Well, I had not received them, and I had not heard anything. However, this evening I received this:

*ATTN*: all cigar customers residing in Maryland

Effective May 1st, 2011, a new law (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/fnotes/bil_0008/hb0088.pdf) has declared it illegal to ship cigars into the state of Maryland.

You heard that right. Unbelievable as it may seem, Maryland legislators took away your right to choose where you buy your cigars. We at Cigarbid.com, like many others in the cigar industry, believe this to be an un-American affront to freedom - and will increase the cost of a cigar to you.

Here is the question for you as a resident of Maryland: is it the responsibility of the state to dictate from whom you can and cannot purchase? Bear in mind, handmade cigars are a legal product. Cigars are no different than sneakers, pencils, or books in terms of interstate commerce. A state cannot arbitrarily choose to close its borders to a legal product, for any reason.

We need you to help overturn this ill-conceived piece of legislation.

Sadly, Maryland legislators think they are protecting a small handful of retail cigar stores in Maryland who, rather than compete in the marketplace on service, selection and pricing, chose to persuade state legislators to approve an anti-choice, anti-freedom, and anti-American law at the 11th hour. Competition is good. Competition is American.

As a Maryland resident, you should be outraged. Today it's cigars. Tomorrow it will be something else. Enough is enough. It is time to fight back.

*HERE IS WHAT I AM ASKING YOU TO DO TODAY*: The Maryland state Comptroller is Peter Franchot. I urge you to contact him today. Tell him you're a voter, you enjoy cigars, and this law limits your choices and freedom. We must make our voices heard or who knows what will be illegal tomorrow.

You can reach Mr. Franchot by calling him at 1-800-552-3941 or emailing him at [email protected].

Or you can mail him at:
Comptroller of Maryland
80 Calvert Street
P.O. Box 466
Annapolis, MD 21404-0466


----------



## sacmore21

I just got the same email from CI also. I think, in theory, the idea is good. However, while it is unlikely, I do not see that it would be impossible for the comptroller to magically complete an audit of your taxes.

I hope others are braver than myself for this call to action


----------



## BHS

OMFG! I just got the emails from CI and cbid respectively. I am freeking out. WTF is going on in this country? I read the email several times in disbelief. I was hoping it was some kind of joke. Obviously it is not. CI HQ is like a 3 hr drive for me but really... should I have to? I just can't even believe this. I emailed the Comptroller as the letter asked but there has to be something else we can do. This is absolute BULLSh!T!!!!


----------



## Captnstabn

From what I understand, it was passed over a year ago, but didn't go into effect until may 1st of this year. I don't know if there is any hope to change it, but I'm emailing.


----------



## ShawnP

Email sent,

Mr. Franchot,

I am writing this due to the notification I just received from one of my online cigar vendors. I must say I am very unhappy about this new law. Who has the right to tell me where I can order my LEGAL cigars from. I truly believe we have bigger issues then this that get pushed to the side.

This is nothing more then Maryland trying to control a individuals rights or make sure they milk tax payers for even more money. It sickens me to no end. What's next telling me where I can go out to dinner with my wife?

Just so you know I am a voter and a tax paying resident of Maryland and I do not support this way of trying to control the public.

I hope you take the time to read this and see it from our side of the fence.

Regards,

Shawn


----------



## jakesmokes

I am no lawyer, but this sounds a lot like the recent attempt at banning handgun ammunition in the state of California. It was supposed to go into effect in February. But it was struck down the day before as being deemed unconstitutional. Man I felt stupid since I acquired quite a bit from my online sources before the intended ban date. 

The stuff I read about the intended ammo ban seemed to indicate that it was unconstitutional for states to regulate federal trade. By preventing online sales that is exactly what they are doing. I am surprised that they are able to get away with this. In the ammo case they had the NRA (and all their lawyers) working on it. Maybe there is just less attention here from people with lawyers who care.

I just don't see how they can prevent individuals from buying anything online. Tax, sure, but ban? Seems illegal to me.


----------



## quincy627

I can remember hearing about this a while ago. It was one of those proposals that was so crazy, you thought there was no way it could pass. Well welcome to communist Maryland. I just sent silicone Pete my email of disaproval.


----------



## fivespdcat

Total BS, I can't find any other words to describe this. If PA is that close just drive there and call it a day.


----------



## Rock31

Road Trips to PA 

I hope this gets overturned, if not other states will soon follow!


----------



## langos

The Constitution of the United States

Article. I.

Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
_*No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.*_
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
_*No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.*_
_*No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another*_; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Section. 10. _*No State shall*_ enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; _*pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*_, or grant any Title of Nobility.
_*No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws*_: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. IV.

Section. 2. *The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.*


----------



## gervasio

Then according to the Commerce Clause, I don't see how this is Constitutionally legal! I yet again, am one step closer to jumping ship to VA.


----------



## langos

gervasio said:


> Then according to the Commerce Clause, I don't see how this is Constitutionally legal! I yet again, am one step closer to jumping ship to VA.


It's not.....


----------



## Jeff10236

ShawnP said:


> So anymore news on this?
> 
> *...*Jeff10236 did you get your shipment from the un-named vendor?...
> 
> Shawn


Not yet, but I did get an email on Thursday that they shipped. Hopefully they are in the mailbox right now (or tomorrow at the latest).


----------



## gervasio

Maybe I'm just not on my A-game, but I read that .pdf 3 times now and do not see where we cannot purchase cigars online. Looks like it only applies to online shopping for in-state sellers. And it's a license fee. I dunno.


----------



## ShawnP

Jeff10236 said:


> Not yet, but I did get an email on Thursday that they shipped. Hopefully they are in the mailbox right now (or tomorrow at the latest).


Not sure if you ordered from the same place as me but I have 2 boxes coming today and another 2 boxes coming tomorrow.

I just don't know. I'm starting to wonder if CI just didn't want to pay for the license to ship/sell to Maryland. I have also only receive a email from CI, no other vendor as mentioned this.

Shawn


----------



## quincy627

I just don't know. I'm starting to wonder if CI just didn't want to pay for the license to ship/sell to Maryland. I have also only receive a email from CI, no other vendor as mentioned this.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Shawn.


----------



## titlowda

Got e-mails from Holts and CI. Both of them are nearly identical in text.


----------



## ShawnP

titlowda said:


> Got e-mails from Holts and CI. Both of them are nearly identical in text.


Well that's the 2nd vendor now. This sucks.

My 1st order arrived today just a little bit ago. 2nd comes tomorrow, already have the shipping info. Matter of time I guess.

Shawn


----------



## Captnstabn

Either that, or it isn't widely known yet. I have yet to see another article besides the one on pipesmagazine.


----------



## JGD

Sounds like a fun class action.....


----------



## quincy627

JGD said:


> Sounds like a fun class action.....


I'm in! :boxing::boxing::boxing:


----------



## komakino

I had forgotten all about this until my order was recently cancelled...such utter BS.

At least I've got friends in other states who would go out of their to mail me cigars just on the principle of breaking this f'd up law.


----------



## BHS

quincy627 said:


> I'm in! :boxing::boxing::boxing:


Me too!!!:clap2:


----------



## ShawnP

Received a reply to my email this morning.

Peter Franchot
Comptroller

Jeffrey A. Kelly
Director
Field Enforcement Division

May 11, 2011

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your inquiry concerning the implications of House Bill 88 - Other Tobacco Products Licenses. This 2010
legislation was sponsored by the Office of the Comptroller, passed by the Maryland General Assembly and signed into law
by the Governor.

The intent of HB 88, which took effect on May 1, 2011, was to strengthen Maryland's ability to identify and prevent
widespread occurrences of tax avoidance and smuggling of other tobacco products (OTP), which include cigars, little cigars,
pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco and moist snuff. For years, contraband OTP - on which the tobacco tax has not been paid
but is due - entered Maryland in a variety of manners, virtually unrestricted and unregulated.

To illustrate the point, it's worth noting that prior to HB 88, the tax on these products was to be paid by the wholesaler who
sells them, or by the retailer or consumer who buys them. Since the inception of the OTP tax on July 1, 2000, only about
$500 has been collected from OTP consumers; which would suggest retail sales volume of just $6,300 in retail sales across
all of Maryland in nearly 11 years. Based simply on the amount of taxes paid, one could either conclude that there was a
very limited consumer market for these products, or a widespread and growing problem with tax avoidance. Based upon
our conclusions that the latter was occurring, a new licensing and regulatory process was introduced that was modeled after
the one currently used for cigarettes. Included in this model is a prohibition on Internet sales of cigars.

The benefits of HB 88 include the fair and equitable collection of taxes, reduced access of OTP to minors, a deterrent effect
on illegal smuggling and sales, and the enforcement of equitable regulatory and enforcement guidelines.

Unfortunately, erroneous information concerning this bill has been circulating. HB 88 was not an attempt by Maryland
legislators to protect any retail cigar stores in Maryland. In fact, one reason this bill was needed is because certain retailers
have purchased and sold contraband OTP illegally and the prosecution of these retailers under previous law was difficult at
best. Nor was HB 88 an 11th hour effort. Legislative records will show that the bill was filed well before the start of the
2010 General Assembly, had its first reading in the House of Delegates on the opening day of the legislative session, and
received timely public hearings in both the House Economic Matters and Senate Finance Committees.

That said, this Office recognizes that the enactment of this legislation has led to unanticipated consequences for certain
consumers; namely, those who are accustomed to purchasing distinctive, premium cigars from online retailers.
Notwithstanding the extraordinary challenges associated with tax compliance in this area, it is clear that the collection and
enjoyment of premium cigars is an avocation enjoyed by a substantial, and obviously growing, number of Marylanders. It is
with that in mind that this Office would accept the opportunity to work with state lawmakers and other stakeholders to
identify legislative remedies that could fulfill the need for tax fairness and legal trade practices while reinstating a greater
degree of consumer choice in this specific area.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. Should you have any further questions or need
additional information, please do not hesitate to call.

Very truly yours,

Jeffrey A. Kelly, Director
Field Enforcement Division
Comptroller of Maryland

P.O. Box 2999 Annapolis, Maryland 21404-2999 410-260-7314 1-888-784-0145 Fax: 410-974-3201
[email protected]  MRS 711 (MD) or 1-800-735-2258  TDD 410-260-7157


----------



## JGD

If the legislative history backs up the letter posted above per the reasoning for the bill then I think that MD residents are going to have a very hard time in any suit aiming for an injunction. 

Unfortunately, there is a ton of precedent allowing these types of restrictions for said reasons.


----------



## BHS

" it is clear that the collection and enjoyment of premium cigars is an avocation enjoyed by a substantial, and obviously growing, number of Marylanders. It is
with that in mind that this Office would accept the opportunity to work with state lawmakers and other stakeholders to identify legislative remedies that could fulfill the need for tax fairness and legal trade practices while reinstating a greater degree of consumer choice in this specific area."

This at least sounds hopeful although I doubt it is high on their list of to do's. Until they work something out....PO Box. Nuff Said!


----------



## langos

Md Constitutional Provisions
Declaration of Rights

*Art. 24.* That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land _(amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978)_. 

*Art. 41.* That monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.

*Art. 44.* That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.


----------



## langos

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND

*ARTICLE VI*

*TREASURY DEPARTMENT.*

*SEC. 2.* The Comptroller shall have the general superintendence of the fiscal affairs of the State; he shall digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of the public credit; prepare and report estimates of the revenue and expenditures of the State; superintend and enforce the prompt collection of all taxes and revenues; adjust and settle, on terms prescribed by law, with delinquent collectors and receivers of taxes and State revenue; preserve all public accounts; and decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts. He, or such of his deputies as may be authorized to do so by the Legislature, shall grant, under regulations prescribed by Law, all warrants for money to be paid out of the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law, and countersign all checks drawn by the Treasurer upon any bank or banks in which the moneys of the State, may, from time to time, be deposited. He shall prescribe the formalities of the transfer of stock, or other evidence of the State debt, and countersign the same, without which such evidence shall not be valid; he shall make to the General Assembly full reports of all his proceedings, and of the state of the Treasury Department within ten days after the commencement of each session; and perform such other duties as shall be prescribed by law _(amended by Chapter 133, Acts of 1929, ratified Nov. 4, 1930)_.


----------



## JGD

langos said:


> Md Constitutional Provisions
> Declaration of Rights
> 
> *Art. 24.* That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land _(amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978)_.
> 
> *Art. 41.* That monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.
> 
> *Art. 44.* That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.


I understand that you are trying to point out the the law violates the MD state const., however, it is going to be a very hard argument to make due to the reasoning that the state legislature had for passing the bill.


----------



## titlowda

To illustrate the point, it's worth noting that prior to HB 88, the tax on these products was to be paid by the wholesaler who
sells them, or by the retailer or consumer who buys them. Since the inception of the OTP tax on July 1, 2000, only about
_*$500 *_has been collected from OTP consumers; which would suggest retail sales volume of just $6,300 in retail sales across
all of Maryland in nearly 11 years. Based simply on the amount of taxes paid, one could either conclude that there was a
very limited consumer market for these products, or a widespread and growing problem with tax avoidance. Based upon
our conclusions that the latter was occurring, a new licensing and regulatory process was introduced that was modeled after
the one currently used for cigarettes. Included in this model is a prohibition on Internet sales of cigars.

Bullsh!t. I have paid more than $60 in taxes over the past two months on cigar purchases.


----------



## Captnstabn

I think that means tax on your online purchases. You are supposed to pay them to Maryland even when you buy online from out of state vendors. At the bottom of every website there is a disclaimer saying you are responsible for your own state taxes.

That's what this whole law is about. People aren't paying the taxes when they buy online, so they outlawed online buying altogether. Now you can only buy in local stores where you have to pay tax.


----------



## ProgressNotes

Yeah, what a brilliant idea. Not a day goes by where I don't see some 15 year old hoodlum with a Camacho hanging out of his mouth, probably smuggled into the state by some no good resident, or worse yet, local retailer. 

What a stupidly heavy-handed approach given their supposed reasoning...I guess they'd rather collect $0 than $500 in taxes. I do think it's possible this gets worked out, but I find it incredibly hard to believe the major online cigar retailers couldn't have come to a decision regarding how to handle this if they were approached. Sounds like what could have been a "win win" for Maryland has turned into a dud. 

Good thing I'm stocked up, but between this, and the stupid impending "public smoking" regulations in MoCo, we're likely to be looking elsewhere for a place to settle down.


----------



## Micksman

quincy627 said:


> +1
> My thoughts exactly. There's always more than 1 way to skin a cat. Like most other things I have seen, while it maybe true, I will believe it when I see it.


I vist my daughter in South Carolina once a month, so I guess I'll be stopping at JR Tobacco on I-85 or picking up some mail in S.C. I wonder if they will be waiting at the border...?


----------



## ProgressNotes

Micksman said:


> I vist my daughter in South Carolina once a month, so I guess I'll be stopping at JR Tobacco on I-85 or picking up some mail in S.C. I wonder if they will be waiting at the border...?


They might be, as I think that same piece of legislation has a monetary limit of OTP you can take across MD borders....ugh.


----------



## bobgee

Open an account at The UPS Store in Delaware and have them forward the packages to you.


----------



## Captnstabn

FWIW, most places will still see that your billing address tied to the credit card is in MD and will not ship.


----------



## JGD

I have not read the entire law. Can someone clear up if it is now illegal to ship cigars into the state - even if they are shipped by an individual? For instance, is it the same thing as it used to be with wine (until the other day)?


----------



## Captnstabn

I really hope the B&M's don't take advantage of this and start jacking up the prices. I can see where they might try to do that, seeing as not many people have any other option but to buy local now.


----------



## langos

*Dear Valued Maryland Cigar Smoker*,

As you may or may not have heard, *effective May 1st 2011, Maryland State Legislators made it illegal to ship cigars into your state* - a law that we believe to be unconstitutional and un-American. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to resolve this situation. In the mean time we are abiding by the law and not shipping cigars into your state until we're able to resolve the issue.

We hope to have a solution soon. In the mean time, if you have an alternative address outside your state, please feel free to ship your order to that address.

We certainly appreciate your patronage, patience and understanding. We will notify you by email once a solution is in place.


----------



## Captnstabn

What site is that from?


----------



## JGD

langos said:


> *Dear Valued Maryland Cigar Smoker*,
> 
> As you may or may not have heard, *effective May 1st 2011, Maryland State Legislators made it illegal to ship cigars into your state* - a law that we believe to be unconstitutional and un-American. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to resolve this situation. In the mean time we are abiding by the law and not shipping cigars into your state until we're able to resolve the issue.
> 
> We hope to have a solution soon. In the mean time, if you have an alternative address outside your state, please feel free to ship your order to that address.
> 
> We certainly appreciate your patronage, patience and understanding. We will notify you by email once a solution is in place.


Honestly, that doesn't really say anything. The e-mail is obviously very one sided and includes other mis-information.


----------



## langos

Captnstabn said:


> What site is that from?


cbid after login.


----------



## quincy627

Captnstabn said:


> FWIW, most places will still see that your billing address tied to the credit card is in MD and will not ship.


Cbid will and did.


----------



## bobgee

Captnstabn said:


> FWIW, most places will still see that your billing address tied to the credit card is in MD and will not ship.


Not true! HB 88 made it illegal to **ship** cigars to Maryland. HB 88 **did not** make it illegal for a Maryland resident to buy cigars online.


----------



## bobgee

I contacted JR and they said they will continue to ship to Maryland.

Ditto for Famous Smoke.


----------



## Casey Jones

bobgee said:


> I contacted JR and they said they will continue to ship to Maryland.
> 
> Ditto for Famous Smoke.


I havent tried JR yet, but Famous Smoke wont even send me a humidor if I live in MD.


----------



## ShawnP

Casey Jones said:


> I havent tried JR yet, but Famous Smoke wont even send me a humidor if I live in MD.


Really......

I have had 3 orders arrive this week from Famous.

Shawn


----------



## ShawnP

bobgee said:


> I contacted JR and they said they will continue to ship to Maryland.
> 
> Ditto for Famous Smoke.


Did they elaborate as to why they will be shipping to MD still.

Shawn


----------



## quincy627

ShawnP said:


> Did they elaborate as to why they will be shipping to MD still.
> 
> Shawn


Could this have anything to do with that special license that the vendors would be required to pay for???


----------



## Rock31

I hope they get this figured out and changed for you guys, this is ridiculous!


----------



## ShawnP

quincy627 said:


> Could this have anything to do with that special license that the vendors would be required to pay for???


That's what i'm hoping it is but wanted to know if they told him anymore info in depth.

If not I will call Famous and ask.

Shawn


----------



## ShawnP

Just got off the phone with Famous. Very polite girl I might add.

Anyway Famous can NO LONGER ship to MD. They WILL however ship accessories.

I also verified they WILL ship to a out of state address even with a MD billing address.

I asked about the license and they know nothing about this.


So there you have it. We atleast can ship to friends.

Shawn


----------



## bobgee

ShawnP said:


> Did they elaborate as to why they will be shipping to MD still.
> 
> Shawn


No, they did not elaborate. I emailed them on May 3rd asking if they still ship to Maryland. They said they do.


----------



## bobgee

Captnstabn said:


> I think that means tax on your online purchases. You are supposed to pay them to Maryland even when you buy online from out of state vendors. At the bottom of every website there is a disclaimer saying you are responsible for your own state taxes.
> 
> That's what this whole law is about. People aren't paying the taxes when they buy online, so they outlawed online buying altogether. Now you can only buy in local stores where you have to pay tax.


It's 2 separate issues.


----------



## ShawnP

bobgee said:


> No, they did not elaborate. I emailed them on May 3rd asking if they still ship to Maryland. They said they do.


See my above post. Had a nice long conversation with them this morning.

Shawn


----------



## quincy627

ShawnP said:


> Just got off the phone with Famous. Very polite girl I might add.
> 
> Anyway Famous can NO LONGER ship to MD. They WILL however ship accessories.
> 
> I also verified they WILL ship to a out of state address even with a MD billing address.
> 
> I asked about the license and they know nothing about this.
> 
> So there you have it. We atleast can ship to friends.
> 
> Shawn


I have already routed all my orders through a friend in PA. The only thing is I have to pay PA sales tax. Gladly, I will!


----------



## WilsonRoa

According to this article, it seems that they were not aiming at premium sticks or anything. It was meant for the cheaper sticks. So they are looking to see if they can amend the new law so that preimum sticks and I'm assuming baccy can be ordered.

Cigar shipments: New Maryland law bans shipments of cigars, pipe tobacco directly to consumers - baltimoresun.com

But if it does change, then it won't be until the fall for it to be looked at. Unless I'm reading it wrong, thats what I get from it.


----------



## JGD

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up....

I just spoke with a very nice and understanding gentleman from the Comptroller's office. As of May 1st, it is *illegal* to have cigars shipped to you. *From anyone*. This means, trades, person-to-peron sales, and bombs. It is still legal for a MD resident to ship out of state (as long as that receiving state does not have laws against it). It is unclear when it is a MD to MD transaction.

He told me that this was due to an oversight by the MD legislature and all of HR 88 will likely be changed come October when they are scheduled to meet about the law. The guess is that they will create a restriction to online tobacco purchases like that of cigarettes, where the seller of the cigs is forced to tell MD of the purchase, thus ensuring the recipient will pay the tax come April.

However, I was also told that the aspects of the law dealing with individuals are almost impossible to enforce, so take that for what it's worth.


----------



## Micksman

ProgressNotes said:


> I'm trying to determine if there is any validity that as of this May, Maryland residents cannot mail order cigars from online retailers. Some of what I read seems to imply this, and some does not. I was hoping maybe somebody here had a better handle on the exact situation.
> 
> Thanks!


 Seems a little funny that this law was passed without examining the cigar market and how cigar smokers in Maryland could secure their favorite sticks from a supplier of their own choice.Also, it seems a little ass backwards that they just eliminated the ban on out of state wine sales...aren't cigars and fine wine natural for some smokers. I believe some refinement of this law will be made. Doesn'tr matter thought, I'll get'em one way or the other.


----------



## WilsonRoa

JGD said:


> Just wanted to give everyone a heads up....
> 
> I just spoke with a very nice and understanding gentleman from the Comptroller's office. As of May 1st, it is *illegal* to have cigars shipped to you. *From anyone*. This means, trades, person-to-peron sales, and bombs. It is still legal for a MD resident to ship out of state (as long as that receiving state does not have laws against it). It is unclear when it is a MD to MD transaction.
> 
> He told me that this was due to an oversight by the MD legislature and all of HR 88 will likely be changed come October when they are scheduled to meet about the law. The guess is that they will create a restriction to online tobacco purchases like that of cigarettes, where the seller of the cigs is forced to tell MD of the purchase, thus ensuring the recipient will pay the tax come April.
> 
> However, I was also told that the aspects of the law dealing with individuals are almost impossible to enforce, so take that for what it's worth.


If its shipped from just anyone, then what if it was a "gift"? so they're going to tax gifts now too? It just doesn't make any sense. Anyone can change the packaging and say its a gift. Even then, like you mentioned, its impossible to enforce it on individual exchanges.


----------



## JGD

WilsonRoa said:


> If its shipped from just anyone, then what if it was a "gift"? so they're going to tax gifts now too? It just doesn't make any sense. Anyone can change the packaging and say its a gift. Even then, like you mentioned, its impossible to enforce it on individual exchanges.


I specifically asked about gifts - they said that they are still not allowed.


----------



## WilsonRoa

smh. theres no way to enforce that. I don't see that lasting long in MD...I hope.


----------



## BigBehr

WilsonRoa said:


> smh. theres no way to enforce that. I don't see that lasting long in MD...I hope.


They won't come after you they Will go after the shops sending the tobacco products. They only have to go after one and I bet they all stop shipping. Now prosecuting across state lines is difficult and costly but hey Maryland residents will be paying for it. With their tax dollars. Just my 2c.


----------



## Jeff10236

WilsonRoa said:


> If its shipped from just anyone, then what if it was a "gift"? so they're going to tax gifts now too? It just doesn't make any sense. Anyone can change the packaging and say its a gift. Even then, like you mentioned, its impossible to enforce it on individual exchanges.


I think this has less to do with sales taxes (which wouldn't matter with a gift) and more to do with tobacco taxes. Shortly after this was passed, a bill was introduced which would have increased tobacco taxes something close to 1000% (luckily it was defeated). I think the idea is to protect _those_ taxes.

It is also about, and probably more so, trying to further control a legal product and make it as inconvenient as possible to buy. This year, a bill was introduced (HB 492), but didn't get out of committee, that would have banned cigar sales in packages smaller than 4. No more singles, and I believe it would have banned all packages that come smaller than 4 from the distributor and manufacturer. How many come in 5 packs and how many would have only been available in boxes of 20 had that passed? It would have greatly driven up the price of our hobby for most people and made it almost impossibly inconvenient for many (most people don't buy in boxes, either due to costs, being occasional smokers, or because they want variety). It is clearly about making cigar and pipe smoking as inconvenient as possible.

HB 492:
BILL INFO-2011 Regular Session-HB 492


----------



## Puckett

Hey guys,

Just an update I have been emailing back and forth with Jeff Kelly Comptroller of Maryland, and he has asked me to give him a call; I will be doing that tonight or tomorrow and will keep you advised on what he says, maybe he can shed some light on this, but as it stands im just as furious as the rest of you.

Also if you'd like me to post my back and fourth with him over email I can. But didnt want to clutter if you are not interested


----------



## langos

Puckett said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Just an update I have been emailing back and forth with Jeff Kelly Comptroller of Maryland, and he has asked me to give him a call; I will be doing that tonight or tomorrow and will keep you advised on what he says, maybe he can shed some light on this, but as it stands im just as furious as the rest of you.
> 
> Also if you'd like me to post my back and fourth with him over email I can. But didnt want to clutter if you are not interested


*interested*...................................:ranger:​


----------



## Puckett

Below is my communication with Mr Jeff Kelley:



Joshua said:


> To Whom It May Concern;
> 
> I would like to express my severe distaste for this bill. It seems as we progress into the 21st Century we as Americans are losing more and more of our freedoms. There are still states who stand strong and stand free but unfortunately I am not a resident of such a state. In Maryland freedom has been washed away longer then I have lived here (which has been my entire life).
> 
> To limit the transportation and shipping of any legal goods is to demote the capitalistic society that we as Americans cling to and boast of. I see no practical reason for this implementation except to generate further revenue for the state at the cost of a free economy.
> 
> NO MAN nor entity [Private, public, or governmental] should have the right to benefit fiscally to the point of an unfair advantage through legislature passed by a government that stands free.
> 
> If our economy is in such severe strain that you must fabricate monopolies to generate income; perhaps you should consider cutting spending instead of cutting freedom.
> 
> Best Regards from a disappointed citizen,
> Joshua Puckett





Jeff said:


> Dear Citizen:
> 
> Please forgive the impersonal nature of this email. Our office has received many comments, questions, and requests for explanations concerning House Bill 88. In order to respond quickly to all who write in, it became necessary to respond with the attachment.
> 
> Thank you,
> Jeff Kelly
> 
> Jeffrey A. Kelly
> Director, Field Enforcement Division
> Comptroller of Maryland
> 80 Calvert Street
> Annapolis, MD 21401
> (410) 260-7388





Joshua said:


> Mr Kelly,
> 
> I have read the attachment and feel no hostility due to the impersonal nature of your response if you will only answer me now.
> 
> Is it your stance and the stance of your office that in order to further punish those breaking the law [tax evasion] it is acceptable to violate our constitution, our free economy, and our rights as both consumers and citizens of the United States of America?
> 
> Is it your stance and the stance of your office that punishing the 5.5 Million Marylanders in an effort to make 'already established criminals' follow laws [that you will have no more power to enforce then the ones they broke in the first place] is acceptable behavior?
> 
> Are we really as a Nation and State so far gone that personal freedoms are seen as acceptable expenditures to regulate Non-Violent White Collar Crimes?
> 
> Also could you advise me on where I could obtain a list of the members of the State that voted for this Bill. I would like to assure that no man or woman who has had any part in this bill ever receives my vote or fiscal support again for the duration of their political careers.
> 
> Best-Regards,
> Joshua Puckett





Jeff said:


> Mr. Puckett,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. The short answer to your questions about our stance is no. Also, the link take you to the website that has a variety of information about the bill including who voted to support it. I understand your frustration about what happened and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about it and what we are trying to do to resolve it and restore consumer choice. If you have a few minutes please call me at 410-260-7388. I have a meeting at 10:30 but would be happy to be a little late for it if you call.
> 
> Thank you,
> Jeff
> 
> mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/hb0088.htm





Joshua said:


> Mr. Kelly,
> 
> I do appreciate your quick response and would love a chance to talk to you about this; I am currently in Switzerland on business so After my business hours are concluded I believe yours would still be going on, My work will be concluded around 12:30pm GMT -5, is there a chance we could arrange a phone call after those hours today or through the rest of the week?
> 
> Thank-You,
> Joshua Puckett





Jeff said:


> Maybe best would be to call on my cell phone in case I am out of the office. That number is 410-320-6985. I look forward to your call.


I plan on giving him a call tonight or tomorrow night, and will update you guys with what he says.


----------



## langos

...............................:hail:


----------



## Puckett

hehe, i dont know if you could tell but i was slightly angered by this bill lol


----------



## Arnie

Isn't it interesting that they LOVE to take away our freedom and then say, Oh no, it is not our intent to take your freedom.
And these bureaucrats have the nuts to say it with a straight face.

The only freedom these dudes love is their freedom to control you and me.


----------



## Puckett

Just got off of a very interesting phone call with Jeff Kelly,

It seems* WE HAVE BEEN HEARD*.

There is an emergency session of the General Assembly being held in August, it seems a revision of this bill will be submitted which will allow Premium Cigar Re-Sellers to ship directly to consumers if they are licensed in Maryland as OTP Distributors.

Becoming licensed will cost $250 paid annually and they will be subject to the same taxes as they were legally obligated to pay before this bill, this bill is NOT A NEW TAX.

Jeff stated that he expects this to be rushed as a lot of clamor has been made (By us... SUCCESS!) and most senators are eager to reverse this as their constituents are not pleased.

Jeff was very kind, polite, and apologetic. The report is that we (Premium cigar smokers) Were over looked, he said no one was aware we existed.

They are aware now and we will not be forgotten. In fact after all this is over I might have to purchase Jeff a premium cigar and enjoy a smoke with him, he seems to be rallying in our corner and is very determined to see a revision passed.


----------



## cigarstogies

What benefit does an out-of-Maryland retailer derive from taxes paid to Maryland?

NONE

If they want Floridians to collect Maryland taxes, they should build a road in Florida!


----------



## Puckett

You are looking at it backwards my friend, we as consumers are paying the tax.

Its just easier to license the seller then the buyer.


Would you prefer in order to buy cigars you needed a license and you had to report annual smoking amounts and pay the taxes then?


----------



## cigarstogies

Puckett said:


> Would you prefer in order to buy cigars you needed a license and you had to report annual smoking amounts and pay the taxes then?


No, I'd rather they focus on making their state more business-friendly to attract business (and more tax revenues) than interfering with interstate commerce.


----------



## quincy627

Puckett said:


> Just got off of a very interesting phone call with Jeff Kelly,
> 
> It seems* WE HAVE BEEN HEARD*.
> 
> There is an emergency session of the General Assembly being held in August, it seems a revision of this bill will be submitted which will allow Premium Cigar Re-Sellers to ship directly to consumers if they are licensed in Maryland as OTP Distributors.
> 
> Becoming licensed will cost $250 paid annually and they will be subject to the same taxes as they were legally obligated to pay before this bill, this bill is NOT A NEW TAX.
> 
> Jeff stated that he expects this to be rushed as a lot of clamor has been made (By us... SUCCESS!) and most senators are eager to reverse this as their constituents are not pleased.
> 
> Jeff was very kind, polite, and apologetic. The report is that we (Premium cigar smokers) Were over looked, he said no one was aware we existed.
> 
> They are aware now and we will not be forgotten. In fact after all this is over I might have to purchase Jeff a premium cigar and enjoy a smoke with him, he seems to be rallying in our corner and is very determined to see a revision passed.


If I remember correctly, the bill previously mentioned something in reference to the vendor had to pay out $ for some sort of license or cetrificate allowing them to ship to MD. Is this what they were referring to as OTP distributors?


----------



## ProgressNotes

quincy627 said:


> If I remember correctly, the bill previously mentioned something in reference to the vendor had to pay out $ for some sort of license or cetrificate allowing them to ship to MD. Is this what they were referring to as OTP distributors?


I would think at least the bigger mailorder retailers wouldn't scoff at paying $250 so they could sell to hundreds thousands of people they couldn't have before.

This is great news. Hopefully things work out! I might actually be running lower come August, anyway


----------



## Puckett

cigarstogies said:


> No, I'd rather they focus on making their state more business-friendly to attract business (and more tax revenues) than interfering with interstate commerce.


Of course its not ideal... but its better then leaving bill 88 unfixed


----------



## quincy627

cigarstogies said:


> No, I'd rather they focus on making their state more business-friendly to attract business (and more tax revenues) than interfering with interstate commerce.


Just stop messin with my stogies!


----------



## Puckett

quincy627 said:


> Just stop messin with my stogies!


here here


----------



## Vwluv10338

Any update on this. I have been out of cigars for the last 8 months or so and I just found this thread. As a Libertarian I am PISSED to say the least. Was the bill changed with the emergency session? Its almost October so they will be back in session soon correct?


----------



## BHS

They've been shipping again since like May or so. Thanks to all the folks in MD that wrote and voiced their concern, they exempted cigars for now. The people have spoken!


----------



## thegoldenmackid

Try this.


----------



## Vwluv10338

Great news. This damn state always wants my money or guns and now my cigars. Its just too much I tell you.


----------



## Enrique1780

BHS said:


> They've been shipping again since like May or so. Thanks to all the folks in MD that wrote and voiced their concern, they exempted cigars for now. The people have spoken!


Indeed. It's always good to hear some positive news with all the bans and tax increases going around.


----------

